Microfundamentos en modelos económicos: aportes desde la perspectiva de la historia económica y el desarrollo económico
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62467/RHEAL/02.01.15Resumen
El concepto de racionalidad por detrás de los modelos económicos es crucial para el tipo de resultados macroeconómicos que pueden generar. Para los historiadores económicos, el tema es de gran relevancia. El tipo de microfundamentos adoptado define en gran medida la utilidad del modelo para entender procesos históricos y el espacio de conversación posible entre economistas, historiadores económicos y otros científicos sociales. Este trabajo argumenta que los modelos basados en incertidumbre keynesiana, racionalidad limitada y micro evolucionista son más útiles para estudiar dos dimensiones críticas en historia económica, tiempo y cambio. El argumento es ilustrado con unos análisis de los determinantes del cambio estructural y del cambio técnico en una economía periférica.
Citas
Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J. (2006). De facto Political Power and Institutional Persistence. American Economic Review, 26(2), 325-330.
Atkinson, A. and Stiglitz, J. E. (1969). A New View of Technological Change, Economic Journal, 79(315), 573-578.
Bianchi, C., Isabella, F., Martinis, A., Picasso, S. (2024). Varieties of Middle-Income Trap: Heterogeneous Trajectories and Common Determinants. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 71, 320-336.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2024.08.008.
Bowles, S. (2004). Microeconomics: Behavior, Institutions and Evolution. New York: Princeton University press.
Büthe, T. (2002). Taking temporality seriously: Modeling history and the use of narratives as evidence. In American Political Science Review 96(3), 481–493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402000278
Chang, H.-J., Andreoni, A. (2020). Industrial Policy in the 21st Century. Development and Change, 51, 324-351. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12570
Cimoli and Porcile (2011). Learning, Technological Capabilities and Structural Dynamics. In J. A Ocampo and J. Ros, The Oxford Handbook of Latin American Economics. Oxford University Press.
Cimoli, M., Katz, J. (2003). Structural reforms, technological gaps and economic development: a Latin American perspective. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(2), 387-411.
Davidson, P. (February 6, 2009). Risk and Uncertainty in Economics. The Economic Recession and the State of Economics.
Dosi, G. (1988) Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120-1171.
Dosi, G., Roventini, A. (2019). More is Different… and Complex! The case for Agent-Based Macroeconomics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 29, 1-37.
Evans, G. W., Honkapohja, S. (2005). An Interview with Thomas J. Sargent. CESifo Working Paper No. 1434.
Farmer, G. (2013). Hypothesis non fingo: Problems with the Scientific Method in Economics, Journal of Economic Methodology, 20(4), 377-284.
Freeman, C. (1995). The National Innovation Systems in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1).
Freeman, C., Lundvall, B.-Å. (Eds.) (1988). Small Countries Facing the Technological Revolution. Pinter Publishers.
Greif, A., Mokyr, J. (2016). Institutions and Economic history: a Critique of Professor McCloskey. Journal of Institutional Economics, 12(1), 29-41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137415000417
Hodgson, G. (2006). What are institutions. Journal of Economic Issues, XL(1), 1-25.
Immergut, E. M. (1998). The Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism. Politics and Society, 26(1), 5-34
Katz, J. (1987). Technology Generation in Latin American Manufacturing Industries: Theory and Case-Studies
Concerning its Nature, Magnitude and Consequences. The Macmillan Press.
Keynes, J. M. (1937). The General Theory of Employment. In The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes. (Vol. 14). Macmillan, Cambridge University Press for the Royal Economic Society.
Kirman, A. P. (1989). The intrinsic limits of modern economic theory: the emperor has no clothes. Economic Journal, Conference Papers, 99, 126-139.
Krasner, S. D. (1982). Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables. International Organization, 36(2).
Kregel, J. (1998). Aspects of a Post Keynesian Theory of Finance. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 21(1), 111-133.
Lall, S. (1992). Technological Capabilities and Industrialization. World Development, 20(2), 165-186.
Lall, S. (2000). The Technological Structure and Performance of Developing Country Manufactured Exports, 1985–98. Oxford Development Studies, 28(3), 337-369.
Lundvall, B. A. (2004). National Innovations Systems: Analytical Concepts and Development Tool. DRUID Tenth Anniversary Summer Conference, on “Dynamics of Industry and Innovation: Organizations, Networks and Systems”.
Lundvall, B. A., Rikap, C. (2022). China’s Catching-up in Artificial Intelligence Seen as a Co-Evolution of Corporate and National Innovation Systems. Research Policy, 51(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104395.
Marmissolle, P. (2024). Society matters: A post-Keynesian approach to economic development. PSL Quarterly Review, 77(310), 351–369.
https://doi.org/10.13133/2037-3643/18654
Mehrling, P. (2023). The Minsky-Kindleberger Connection and the Making of Manias, Panics, and Crashes. OEconomia, 13(4), 1029-1053.
Minsky, H. P. (1977). A Theory of Systemic Fragility. Hyman P. Minsky Archive, 231. https://digitalcommons. bard.edu/hm_archive/231.
Mjøset, L. (1985). Review Essay: The Limits of Neoclassical Institutionalism. Journal of Peace Research, 22(1), 79-86.
Narula, R. (2004). Understanding Absorptive Capacities in an Innovation Systems Context: Consequences for Economic and Employment Growth. DRUID Working Paper, 04-02.
Nelson, K., Nelson, R. (2003). Technology, Institutions and Innovation. Research Policy, 31(2), 265-272.
Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press.
North, D. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.
OECD. (1997). National Innovation System. OECD.
Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technological change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13, 343375.
Pindyck, R. S. (2013). Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us? Journal of Economic Literature, 51(3), 860-872.
Porcile, G., Spinola, D., Yajima, G. (2023). Growth trajectories and political economy in a Structuralist open economy model. Review of Keynesian Economics, 11(3), 350-376. https://doi.org/10.4337/roke.2023.03.04
Reinert, E. S. (1995). Competitiveness and its predecessors - a 500 Year cross-national perspective. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 6, 23-42.
Saviotti, P., Frenken, K. (2008). Export Variety and the Economic Performance of Countries. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18(2), 201-218.
Shiller, R. (1978). Rational Expectations and the Dynamic Structure of Macroeconomic Models: A Critical Review. Journal of Monetary Economics, 4(1), 1-44.
Simon, H. (2000). Bounded Rationality in Social Sciences: Today and Tomorrow. Mind and Society, 1, 25-39.
Skidelsky, R. (2014). Keynes: The Return of the Master. Public Affairs.
Skott, P. (2023). Structuralist and Behavioral Macroeconomics. Cambridge University Press.
Sørensen, P.B., Whitta-Jacobsen, H.J. (2005). Introducing Advanced Macroeconomics: Growth and Business Cycles. Maidenhen, Berkshire: Mc Graw-Hill Education.
Stern, N. (2013). The Structure of Economic Modelling of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change: Grafting Gross Underestimation of Risk onto Already Narrow Science Models. Journal of Economic Literature, 51(3), 838-859.
Stockhammer, E. (2022). Macroeconomic ingredients for a growth model analysis for peripheral economies: a post-Keynesian-structuralist approach. New Political Economy, 28(4), 628-645. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2022.2149723
Vercelli, A. (1991). Methodological Foundations of Macroeconomics: Keynes and Lucas. Cambridge University Press.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
.png){kind=logo}
